Cutible MCP Server

remove_silences

Remove silent portions from clips on a track. Set min_silence to clean up audio by trimming quiet segments.

Instructions

Remove silent portions from clips on a track.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "track_id": "<track_id>"
    },
    "name": "remove_silences"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`track_id`	Yes
`min_silence`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 14, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the primary action but does not mention whether the operation is destructive, whether it ripples subsequent clips, whether it works on all clip types, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutating tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, clear, front-loaded sentence with no redundant phrasing. It is appropriately concise, though it could add a bit more detail without becoming verbose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description must carry the full burden of contextual completeness. It lacks critical information such as the effect on clip layout, reversibility, and the minimum required parameters. This is inadequate for safe autonomous invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the tool description must compensate by explaining the parameters. The description mentions 'track' but does not clarify that track_id is the identifier or explain what min_silence controls (e.g., the threshold in seconds). An agent would have to guess the semantics of min_silence from its name alone.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action ('Remove silent portions') on a specific resource ('clips on a track'), which distinguishes it from generic tools like trim or ripple_delete. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools that also operate on clips, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the usage context: use this when you want to automatically remove silences from a track. It does not specify when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like manual trimming or ripple_delete, so the agent must infer the appropriate scenario.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.